Slashdot Mirror
The Economist Contrasts American, European Patent Approaches
fiannaFailMan writes "The Economist has summarised recent developents in software patents and contrasts the American and European approaches. 'The European Commission wants to avoid the American situation, in which case law drives authorities to issue computer-related patents all too easily, in particular for business methods and algorithms.'"
If the gap were closed by fixing the US patent laws, that would result in less headaches than having Europe repeat the mistakes made in America.
I'm not sure if everybody realizes it, but if it is true, the most important part of the article is that supposedly Arlene McCarthy has finally agreed to include the "use of controllable forces of nature" as part of deciding whether an invention makes a technical contributions.
Let's backstep a few decades. By the late 70s/early 80s, the German Federal Court had to decide on a number of patent applications. One involved an accounting program, one a system for anti-lock brakes (which was controlled by software). They found the former unpatentable, and the latter patentable. The distinguishing criterion was that the anti-lock brakes taught new ways to control forces of nature, whereas the accounting program was essentially an "instruction for the human mind", even if it was executed by a "machine that was used according to its intended use".
With criteria for the patentability of these two extremes (a pure software solution, and a hardware solution with some tightly integrated software aspects) established, and technicality being the distinguishing criterion, and this state of affairs subsequently encoded in European patent law by saying that "programs as such" (as opposed to programs that were integrated with hardware solutions), the past few decades courts and patent offices started a battle over the gray area in between. The German Federal Court later allowed patentability increasingly to encroach on the software side, but the greatest abuse was done by the European Patent Office, which came up with more and more convoluted rationales to interpret the "as such" clause to allow for software patents, despite the clear legal precedent.
Now things are in the hand of JURI, the European Parliament's committee for Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. The initial committee proposal for the patent directive had a wishy-washy clause about something being a "technical contribution", that wouldn't have changed anything and harmonized nothing, and would have especially allowed the EPO to extend its creative twisting of the law even further. And with the planned enactment of the Community Patent, to be granted by the EPO, the door would have been wide open for EU-wide software patents. Note that the problem with the proposal was not so much that it allowed for software patents, but that it was poorly written law, with a million ways to interpret it. A number of clarifications -- including the "controllable forces of nature" criterion were proposed to JURI, but they were rejected.
So, if JURI finally concedes the point and allows for a proper, clear, and unambiguous criterion for technicality, that should alleviate quite a few concerns.
Mr. Wade's point is not very interesting. To rephrase his opinion: (1) America has a lot of influence in the world, (2) it uses it further its own interests, and (3) the power is projected [also] via monetary/financial institutions.
Brief comments on these: (1) Great powers have existed in most of civilized history, and examples of one-country hegemonies are not unusual. (2) All countries try to further their own aims. (3) Power projected in this way is usually preferable to military power. Thus, the situation Wade discribes is neither unusual, nor necessarily bad or immoral.
It is quite possible to argue that compared to all other hegemons, America has done less wrong and more good with its power. It is very easy to imagine worse hegemonies - imagine what e.g. a maoist Chinese, marxist Soviet or islamic Iranian hegemony would be like. I personally disapprove of major parts of American foreign policy, but I also try to be realistic about it and its alternatives.
Btw, it is wrong to use the word "empire" in the sense Mr. Wade does. My Oxford Learner's Dictionary defines an empire as "Group of countries under a single supreme authority" (my emphasis). Taking the word 'supreme' out of the definition would make it include the UN, the WHO, the International Olympic Committee etc. etc. The US empire at present covers the American homeland, Iraq and nothing else.
Its because average american is not aware of any real life issues. He is simply herded by the mainstream media and the news "manufactured" by them. Thats not the case in Europe or other part of the world where real life issues are reflected in the media to a great extend. And I think its because of the decentralisation of media infrastructure in these countries. So small players and public entities contribute to the diversity of the news. In US media(mostly) owned by a bunch of business groups who treat it just like any other profit generating business. Goverement agencies like BBC and small magazines/newspapers like "La monde" are good examples.
http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/